Evolution Flashcards
What is the definition of “Spontaneous Generation” (also ‘Abiogenisis’)?
spontaneous generation (n) 1. (Biology) a theory, widely held in the 19th century and earlier but now discredited, stating that living organisms could arise directly and rapidly from nonliving material. Also called: abiogenesis (the production of living organisms by nonliving matter; spontaneous generation: a former belief.)
What is the Law of Biogenisis?
Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[1][2] This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for “all life [is] from life.” A related statement is Omnis cellula e cellula, “all cells [are] from cells;” this observation is one of the central statements of cell theory.
What is the ‘Panspermia” Theory?
Panspermia is a Greek word that translates literally as “seeds everywhere”. The panspermia hypothesis states that the “seeds” of life exist all over the Universe and can be propagated through space from one location to another. Some believe that life on Earth may have originated through these “seeds”. Mechanisms for panspermia include the deflection of interstellar dust by solar radiation pressure and extremophile microorganisms traveling through space within an asteroid, meteorite or comet. The first known mention of the concept of panspermia was in the writings of the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras (500 BC – 428 BC), although his concept differs from the modern theory: “All things have existed from the beginning. But originally they existed in infinitesimally small fragments of themselves, endless in number and inextricably combined. All things existed in this mass, but in a confused and indistinguishable form. There were the seeds (spermata) or miniatures of wheat and flesh and gold in the primitive mixture; but these parts, of like nature with their wholes, had to be eliminated from the complex mass before they could receive a definite name and character.”
Are there modern-day scientists that believe in the theory of ‘spontaneous generation’?
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Scientific American, August 1954. That statement by Dr. Wald demonstrates a much greater faith than a religious creationist can muster. Notice that the great evolutionary scientist says it could not have happened. It was impossible. Yet he believes it did happen. What can we say to that kind of faith? At least the creationist believes that God was able to speak life into existence. His is not a blind faith in something that he concedes to be impossible.
What is the definition of “religion”
Religion: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.
Is evolution a religion? What does its proponents say?
It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion! “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” (Ruse, Michael, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.) “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.)
Are creationists the only ones that are dumbfounded by the extravigant, “just so”, untestable theories put forward by evolutionists?
We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.(Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.)
Do evolutionist use the class room to indoctrinate students?
Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says: And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary. (Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.)
Are there modern-day scientists that believe in ‘panspermia’?
In 1743 the theory of panspermia appeared in the writings of French nobleman, diplomat and natural historian Benoît de Maillet, who believed that that life on Earth was “seeded” by germs from space falling into the oceans, rather than life arising through abiogenesis. The panspermia theory was rekindled in the nineteenth century by the scientists Jöns Jacob Berzelius (1779–1848), Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) (1824–1907) and Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894). Lord Kelvin declared in 1871, “[W]e must regard it as probable in the highest degree that there are countless seed-bearing meteoric stones moving about through space. If at the present instance no life existed upon this Earth, one such stone falling upon it might, by what we blindly call natural causes, lead to its becoming covered with vegetation.” In 1973 the late Nobel prize winning British molecular biologist, physicist and neuroscientist Professor Francis Crick, along with British chemist Leslie Orgel, proposed the theory of directed panspermia.
Is the belief in evolution a pre-requisite for scientific discovery? In otherwords, has there been a scientific advancement that could only have come about by first assuming evolution as fact?
There has never been a scientific discovery, advancement, or breakthrough that was contingent on a belief in evolution. Conversly, it appears that our environment, our habitat, and our universe was fine tuned for scientific discovery by an infinite supreme creator (examples provided in the book “Privilaged Planet”).
What are the 3 pillars of Evolution?
- Time - The current estimates for the age of the planet about 4.6 billion years.
- Chance - A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10(160). That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another scientist expressed it this way: “The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years” (The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23). Evolutionist claim that the improbable becomes probable given enought time.
- Natural Selection - i.e. ‘survival of the fittest’. Stephen J. Gould (Natural History, 6-7/77, p.28) said, “The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” When Gould speaks of a “creative force”, he could not be closer to speaking of God without mentioning Him. Yet, he ascribed the power to some natural “force”. He made a god of a “force of nature”. Julian Huxley made it clear what REALLY happened (Issues in Evolution, 1960, p.45), “Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution.”
Is Homology proof of “decent with modifications”?
Common designs points to a single designer
Is genetic mutation a plausible mechanism for adding new information to DNA code?
No
What is the difference between historical science and operational science?
?
What examples can be cited where mutations have added NEW, BENEFICIAL information to genetic code.
Fruit flies Peppered moths Finches
What are ‘Index Fossils’?
The encyclopedia Britannica defines index fossils as “any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment. A useful index fossil must be distinctive or easily recognizable, abundant, and have a wide geographic distribution and a short range through time. Index fossils are the basis for defining boundaries in the geologic time scale and for the correlation of strata.”
The problem with using the geologic column and index fossils for dating is that the fossils are dated by the rock layers they are in and the rock layers are dated by the fossils that are in them. This is a classic case of circular reasoning. This dating of index fossils was done over 100 years before radiometric “dating” techniques were developed.
Are shrimp evolving?
This 170-million-year-old fossil shrimp from the Jurassic period is no different from living shrimps.
Are dragonfly’s evolving?
This 140-million-year-old dragonfly fossil found in Bavaria, Germany is identical to living dragonflies.
Are scorpions evolving?
The oldest known fossil scorpion, found in East Kirkton in Scotland. This species, known as Pulmonoscorpis kirktoniensis, is 320 million years old, yet no different from today’s scorpions.
Are horseshoe crabs evolving?
Horseshoe crab fossil from the Ordovician period. This 450-million-year-old fossil is no different from specimens living today.
Have coelacanth’s evolved?
The coelacanth was believed to be extinct until one day in 1938 one was found in the catch of a fishing trawler by a museum curator. This makes it a Lazarus taxon, a species that has ‘risen from the dead,’ thought to be extinct only to be discovered alive. The oldest fossil is 360 million years old, and it seems the fish has hardly changed since then. Many thought they went extinct 80 million years.
Are finches evolving?
Many text books claim that the variations observed in the beaks of the Galapagos finches lead to the formulation of Darwin’s theory of evolution (specifically ‘decendancy with variation). The hypothesis was that the differences in diets have lead to different bill sizes. However, this is strong evidence for micro-evoluion (changes within a species) and not macro-evolution (species changing into other species). In fact, evolutionary biologist Peter Grant has recently observed a ‘reversal in the direction of selection’ due to changes in climate. Additionally, it appears that the finch species are converging (or hybridizing) rather than diverging. This is contradictory to evolutionary predictions.
How does ‘Haeckel’s Embryos’ help or hurt the case for evolution?
The evolutionary study of embryos reached a peak in the late 1800s thanks primarily to the efforts of one extraordinarily gifted, though not entirely honest, scientist named Ernst Haeckel (left). Haeckel was a champion of Darwin, but he also embraced the pre-Darwinian notion that life formed a series of successively higher forms, with embryos of higher forms “recapitulating” the lower ones. Haeckel believed that, over the course of time, evolution added new stages to produce new life forms. Thus, embryonic development was actually a record of evolutionary history. The single cell corresponded to amoeba-like ancestors, developing eventually into a sea squirt, a fish, and so on. Haeckel, who was adept at packaging and promoting his ideas, coined both a name for the process — “the Biogenetic Law” — as well as a catchy motto: “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”
Haeckel was so convinced of his Biogenetic Law that he was willing to bend evidence to support it. The truth is that the development of embryos does not fit into the strict progression that Haeckel claimed.
Today, biology text books still include some derivative of Haeckels embryos in order to mislead students. The images depict embryos during mid stages with do seem to bare some resemblance. However, the theory Heackel and Darwin put forward is that embryos would look most similar at early stages. In fact, this is when embryos look most dissimilar.
Haeckels Embryos is a perfect example of evolutionists using misleading information to indoctrinate students and the general public.
